↓ Skip to main content

Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
45 tweeters
weibo
1 weibo user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, February 2015
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.114.094227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryota Nakamura, Marc Suhrcke, Susan A Jebb, Rachel Pechey, Eva Almiron-Roig, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract

There is a growing concern, but limited evidence, that price promotions contribute to a poor diet and the social patterning of diet-related disease. We examined the following questions: 1) Are less-healthy foods more likely to be promoted than healthier foods? 2) Are consumers more responsive to promotions on less-healthy products? 3) Are there socioeconomic differences in food purchases in response to price promotions? With the use of hierarchical regression, we analyzed data on purchases of 11,323 products within 135 food and beverage categories from 26,986 households in Great Britain during 2010. Major supermarkets operated the same price promotions in all branches. The number of stores that offered price promotions on each product for each week was used to measure the frequency of price promotions. We assessed the healthiness of each product by using a nutrient profiling (NP) model. A total of 6788 products (60%) were in healthier categories and 4535 products (40%) were in less-healthy categories. There was no significant gap in the frequency of promotion by the healthiness of products neither within nor between categories. However, after we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales uplift arising from price promotions was larger in less-healthy than in healthier categories; a 1-SD point increase in the category mean NP score, implying the category becomes less healthy, was associated with an additional 7.7-percentage point increase in sales (from 27.3% to 35.0%; P < 0.01). The magnitude of the sales uplift from promotions was larger for higher-socioeconomic status (SES) groups than for lower ones (34.6% for the high-SES group, 28.1% for the middle-SES group, and 23.1% for the low-SES group). Finally, there was no significant SES gap in the absolute volume of purchases of less-healthy foods made on promotion. Attempts to limit promotions on less-healthy foods could improve the population diet but would be unlikely to reduce health inequalities arising from poorer diets in low-socioeconomic groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Belgium 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 86 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Unspecified 7 8%
Other 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Unspecified 17 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Other 22 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#239,934
of 13,755,046 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#728
of 9,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,485
of 282,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#18
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,755,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,473 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.